Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders (scientificamerican.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Scientific American: Intelligence makes for better leaders -- from undergraduates to executives to presidents -- according to multiple studies. It certainly makes sense that handling a market shift or legislative logjam requires cognitive oomph. But new research on leadership suggests that, at a certain point, having a higher IQ stops helping and starts hurting. The researchers looked at 379 male and female business leaders in 30 countries, across fields that included banking, retail and technology. The managers took IQ tests (an imperfect but robust predictor of performance in many areas), and each was rated on leadership style and effectiveness by an average of eight co-workers. IQ positively correlated with ratings of leader effectiveness, strategy formation, vision and several other characteristics -- up to a point. The ratings peaked at an IQ of around 120, which is higher than roughly 80 percent of office workers. Beyond that, the ratings declined. The researchers suggest the "ideal" IQ could be higher or lower in various fields, depending on whether technical versus social skills are more valued in a given work culture. The study's lead author, John Antonakis, a psychologist at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, suggests leaders should use their intelligence to generate creative metaphors that will persuade and inspire others -- the way former U.S. President Barack Obama did. "I think the only way a smart person can signal their intelligence appropriately and still connect with the people," Antonakis says, "is to speak in charismatic ways."

Comments

They talk funny

[MikeB0Lton]

Idiocracy is officially here. President Camacho, here we come.

Re:They talk funny

[Kiuas]

President Camacho

The way I see it as an outsider is that Gamacho would be an improvement. I mean, here's a man that recognized his own limitations and did his best to get the smartest man alive to try and solve the issues they're facing because he knew he couldn't do so himself. That's actually a quality many leaders lack.

Meanwhile, Trump's a guy who bragged about passing his health exam. Dude recognized some animals from pictures and he know holds himself to be a certified genius that's 'like, really smart'. Because if there's one thing we know about smart people it's that they constantly tell everyone how really super duper smart they are.

Re:They talk funny

[h33t l4x0r]

Hmm, Obama was pretty smart, but he was no stable genius.

Re: They talk funny

[amiga3D]

Nobody looks down on intelligent people, they look down on arrogant asswipes who think they know it all. I've known intelligent people far smarter than me and had no problem with them. They talked to me like I wasn't a simple minded idiot for one thing although to them I probably seemed like one. Far too many people on slashdot don't seem to be half as smart as they think they are yet insist on telling you how brilliant they are.

People like to think

[rsilvergun]

they can run the country with good 'ole fashion common sense. It doesn't help that it looks easy. After all, anyone can tell somebody else what to do, right? It's like writing. You learn to do it in grade school. How hard can this Shakespear stuff be, amiright? The trouble is it's scary to think that the problems of the world are too complex for you to understand and solve. Rather than face that fact and seek help a lot of folks deny it and try to force the world to conform the the reality they've chosen to believe in; with predictable results...

Also, a significant portion of the population really, really hates to feel talked down to; and, well, it's easy to rile these folks up, drive them to the polls and get them to vote you into office. Clinton (Bill) used to do it. When he talked to old people he dyed his hair gray. Young folks got a brown dye. And his southern drawl pretty much vanished when he wasn't on the campaign in the South.

That would explain it

[SuperKendall]

I wondered why so many people dislike a stable genius.

TL;DR version

[Gravis Zero]

Some people are dumb as shit and don't like you because they cannot comprehend the message you are attempting to convey.

There has to be a better way

[jensend]

Mitt Romney is one of the smartest presidential candidates this nation has ever seen, as well as a fundamentally decent human being. People tore him to bits over offhand comments and talked endlessly about his unforgivable sin of having - 30 years prior - taken his dog on vacation. (One New York Times columnist published no less than 86 columns talking about that incident, which seems like obsessive enough behavior to qualify for institutionalization.)

Donald Trump is one of the least intelligent presidential candidates this nation has ever seen. Blatant lies, boasts about sexual assault, and so on only served to feed his campaign. At least a third of the country is still really excited about having this "stable genius" lead them even though he clearly struggles to understand any of the issues a President faces.

Look at Churchill's speeches or FDR's fireside chats. Now look at Donald Trump's twitter stream (MY EYES! THE GOGGLES DO NOTHING!). This is the evolution of civil discourse in just one lifetime.

I get that sometimes someone who speaks blunt falsehoods rather than complex truths can be seen as a "man of the people." I don't think this has to be so. I don't think this has been true in all cultures and at all times through human history. I don't know how we can overcome the anti-intellectual pressures that have been building in this country for 70 years, the politicization of journalism and education, the degeneration of political discourse at all levels into dick jokes and cursing, and so on. But if we don't find some way to overcome it our civilization will collapse.

Re:What about dumb people?

[Anonymous Coward]

I too, chose to be a one-percenter, and it has paid off.
Boy is it funny how none of the problems the commonfolk choose, affect my life at all!
I get taxbreaks all the time, yet the paupers keep whining about a couple thousand dollars out of pocket. That's just chump change, who even cares.
All these folks choose to work multiple gruelling minimum wage jobs and insist on paying way too much rent and then choose to be unable to afford food or healthcare or a proper Harvard education for their kids! Then they choose having no retirement or even a portfolio so instead they keep crowding the streets with their homeless smelly asses. Stupid shit I tell ya. They even drive cheap shitty cars and never wear Armani.
Losers. Everybody should just choose to be a billionaire, that would solve all the problems they complain about.

Re:Paradox of intelligence

[AK Marc]

http://blogs.discovermagazine....

Re:Paradox of intelligence

[Jane Q. Public]

Multiple studies have been done on this phenomenon, and I am rather surprised that this is presented as "news".

The simple fact is that people generally do not accept "leaders" who have IQs more than about 20 points higher than their own. And the reason -- according to current theory -- is that they just don't understand how each other think.

This has shown to hold for IQs between about 70 and 160.

Someone with an IQ of 70 does not well understand someone of IQ 100, someone of IQ 90 does not well understand someone of IQ 120 and someone of 120 does not well understand someone with an IQ of 150.

There is a rather large body of study and evidence to support this. It is no great mystery.

Re:Different things triggers different reactions

[AmiMoJo]

These days politics has been reduced to sound bites and tweets. Intelligent statements often can't be reduced to a 3 second clip. Effective solutions often require explanation, where as simple but ineffective ones like "build a wall" or "ban Muslims" don't.

We need to find ways to communicate good ideas in this new age, or somehow force a change away from politics by tweet.